BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES ( RENT CONTROLLER )

AT CHENNAI

R.C.O.P.No. of 2018

Mrs. M.Shantha Kumari,

W/o Mr. M.G.Mohanarangan,
No.3, P.S.Sivasamy street,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004,
represented by her Power of Attorney,
Mr. M.G.Mohanarangan,
No.3, P.S.Sivasamy street,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004 ... Petitioner

Vs

Mr.S.Iqbal,
S/o Mr.Sikkandar,
Old No.63, New No.139,
Ground Floor,
Eldams Road, Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018.
... Respondent

PETITION FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

TAMILNADU BUILDINGS (LEASE & RENT CONTROL) ACT , 1960 AS
AMENDED

1. The Petitioner is Mrs. M.Shantha Kumari, W/o Mr. M.G.Mohanarangan, aged

62 years, residing at No.3, P.S.Sivasamy street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004,
represented by her Power of Attorney, Mr. M.G.Mohanarangan, S/o
Mr.Govindarajulu, aged 72 years, residing at No.3, P.S.Sivasamy street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the Petitioner is that of her
counsel M/s A.R.Sakthivel, P.Nisha Priyadarsini,K.Santhosh and S. Aruna at
No.353, New Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai – 600104.
2. The respondent is Mr.S.Iqbal, S/o Mr.Sikkandar, age not known, had been
carrying on business at Old No.63, New No.139, Ground Floor, Eldams Road,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the Respondent is the
same as stated above.

3. The petitioner states that the respondent is a tenant under her in respect of the
ground floor of the premises bearing Old No.63, New No.139, Eldams Road,
Teynampet,Chennai-600 018. The respondent was inducted as a tenant around
twenty years ago and presently, the monthly rent is Rs.24,000/- excluding the
 -2-

electricity consumption charges. The said premises was let out to the respondent
for the purpose of carrying on the business of aluminium and glass and the
respondent had been carrying on the said business under the name and style of
‘City Aluminiums and Glass’

4. The petitioner states that the respondent, from the very beginning, has been
irregular in the payment of monthly rents and he has been in the habit of paying
the rents, only after repeated demands. The petitioner states that as of now, the
rents from the month of July 2017 have not been paid in spite of her repeated
demands and that the respondent is in arrears of rent for ten months from July
2017 to April 2018, amounting to a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. The repeated demands
of the petitioner to pay the said rents have fallen on deaf ears and the respondent
has thus, committed wilful default in the payment of rents.

5. The petitioner states that of late, whenever the petitioner’s husband and power of
attorney, Mr. M.G.Mohanarangan used to come to the demised premises, he has
been unable to meet the respondent. The respondent would inform over phone that
the rent has been given to one Mr. Sikkandar Basha, who, to the petitioner’s
knowledge, had been an employee of the respondent for a very long time and that
the petitioner’s husband could collect the rent from the said Sikkandar Basha.

6. The petitioner states that as the respondent had failed to pay the rents from July
2017, she and her husband have been contacting the respondent for demanding the
rents. While so, the said Sikkandar Basha has now revealed to the petitioner that
he is responsible for payment of rents as the respondent had already handed over
the said business to him and that it is the he who is running the said business in the
demised premises, in his name. It has now become obvious that the respondent
has sublet the demised premises to the said Sikkandar Basha, the fact, which has
been deliberately suppressed from the petitioner. The respondent has sub-let the
entire premises let out to him by the petitioner to the said Sikkandar Basha though
the lease to the respondent does not confer on him any right to do so.

7. The petitioner further states that about a year ago, during April 2017, she had
informed the respondent that she needs the demised premises for the purpose of
the business requirements of her husband, Mr.M.G.Mohanarangan. The
petitioner’s husband is a retired electrical engineer, and out of necessity to
generate enough income to maintain the family, it was decided that he shall do the
business of executing electrical contract works and to open a store for wholesale
and retail sale of electrical and electronic appliances and accordingly, he has even
begun undertaking electrical job works. The petitioner has therefore been
requesting and demanding the respondent to vacate the demised premises and
hand over possession to the petitioner, to meet out the bonafide business
requirements of her husband. But, the respondent has failed to vacate, despite her
repeated demands, subjecting the petitioner and her family to great hardship.

8. The petitioner has therefore issued a legal notice dated 11-05-2018 terminating the
tenancy of the respondent in respect of the demised premises and calling upon
 -3-

both the respondent and the said Sikkandar Basha to vacate the demised premises
and deliver vacant possession of the same by 31 st May 2018. The respondent was
further called upon to pay the said arrears of rents and the subsequent rents until
delivery of possession to the petitioner. But the respondent and the said Sikkandar
Basha have not claimed the said notice deliberately and the same has been
returned. The failure of the respondent and the said Sikkandar Basha to vacate the
demised premises has caused immense hardship and suffering to the petitioner and
her family.

9. The petitioner has therefore filed a Rent Control Original Petition

No. for eviction of the respondent, which is pending before
the court of Small Causes, Chennai.

10. The petitioner submits that the respondent is not willing to vacate the premises
immediately and it is understood that the respondent would adopt all tactics to
prolong the eviction proceedings. In such an event, it would not be just and
reasonable if the respondent continues to pay the rent that is being paid by the
respondent at present, until the respondent is evicted from the petition premises
through an order of the Court.

11. The petitioner submits that the present monthly rent of Rs. 24,000/-, is very
meagre, taking into consideration, the fact that the petition premises is located at
Eldams Road at Teynampet, which is a very famous and prominent road in the
City of Chennai, connecting the very busy and commercial Anna Salai (Mount
Road) and the commercial TTK Road at Alwarpet. The petition premises is
located right on the road just a few metres away from Alwarpet. The said road is
fully commercial, comprising of several business establishments, banks, hotels,
commercial complexes, hospitals, market etc. Buses to several areas fly through
this road. The road is a very wide one, having a width of more than 60 feet. The
very famous C.P. Ramasamy Art Gallery is situated in this road. The present
market value of a ground (2400 sq. ft.) on Eldams road is more than seven crores.
The petitioner submits that the petition premises is purely commercial. The
petitioner submits that if the market value of the property at Eldams Road is fixed
at Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven crores only), the land, measuring an extent of
1140 sq.ft., would therefore be, Rs. 3,32,50,000/- (Rupees three crores thirty two
lakhs and fifty thousand only) and the value of the building in the ground floor
would be Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) and then, the total value of
the petition premises would be Rs. 3,52,50,000/- (Rupees three crores fifty two
lakhs and fifty thousand only).

12. The petitioner submits that while she requires the petition premises for her
husband’s business requirements, the act of the respondent, in not vacating the
premises, and handing over possession to the petitioner, has subjected the
petitioner to great hardship and huge loss of income. The respondent, therefore
cannot be permitted to continue to pay the said meagre rent of Rs. 24,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Four thousand only) per month and the respondent ought to pay
rent in accordance with the said market value of the premises, until the respondent
vacates the same.
 -4-

13. The petitioner submits that the petition building is a Type I Building. It has all
Schedule I amenities like mosaic flooring, overhead water tank and electric motor
pump. Therefore electricity connection is provided in the said premises. Water
connection and an exclusive toilet are also provided in the premises.

14. The petitioner submits that in the said circumstances, it is necessary for this
Hon’ble Court to fix fair rent for the schedule mentioned property and to direct the
respondent to pay such fair rent to the petitioner.

15. The petitioner submits that the petition premises does not fall under the exemption
specified under section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control)
Act, 1960 (as amended).

16. The petitioner pays a court fee of Rs. /-

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an
order fixing the fair rent for the schedule mentioned property at Rs. 3,52,500/-
(Rupees three lakhs fifty two thousand and five hundred only) per month and pass
such further and other orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai this the day of June 2018

Counsel for petitioner Petitioner

VERIFICATION

I, M.G.Mohanarangan, the Power of Attorney of the petitioner, do hereby verify

and declare that what are stated in the petition above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, belief and information.

Verified at Chennai this the day of June 2018

Petitioner
SCHEDULE

Ground floor of the premises bearing Old No.63, New No.139, Eldams Road,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018, comprised in Survey No.1532/2, measuring an extent of
1140 sq.ft., or thereabouts, situate within the Sub-Registration District of Thousand Lights
and Registration District of Chennai Central

Dated at Chennai this the day of June 2018

Counsel for petitioner Petitioner

VERIFICATION

I, M.G.Mohanarangan, the Power of Attorney of the petitioner, do hereby verify

and declare that what are stated in the schedule above are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, belief and information.

Verified at Chennai this the day of June 2018

Petitioner
 BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES ( RENT CONTROLLER)
AT CHENNAI

R.C.O.P.No. of 2018

Mrs. M.Shantha Kumari,

W/o Mr. M.G.Mohanarangan,
Rep. by her Power of Attorney,
Mr. M.G.Mohanarangan,
... Petitioner
Vs
S.Iqbal
... Respondents

PETITION FOR FIXATION OF FAIR

RENT UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
TAMILNADU BUILDINGS (LEASE &
RENT CONTROL) ACT , 1960 AS
AMENDED

M/S. A.R.SAKTHIVEL (MS. 1059/ 1991)

P.NISHA PRIYADARSINI( MS.2631/2013)
K.SANTHOSH (MS.2781/2015)

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER